Investigation of axial impact behavior of adhesively bonded joints after vibratory fatigue
Source abstract
Abstract
In this study, the mechanical behaviours of adhesively bonded composite joints were investigated applying different mechanical tests such as vibration and axial impacts. In the first step of this study, the vibration tests were applied to adhesively bonded composite plates with different cycles (1.5 × 105, 3 × 105, 12 × 105 and 24 × 105) via vibration motor. After the vibration tests, as a second step of the study, these plates were cut as a single lap adhesively bonded composite joints and axial impact tests with different impact energy values as 5, 10, 15 and 20 Joules were applied to these joints. Subsequently, quasi-static tensile tests were implemented to adhesively bonded composite joints. According to experimental results, the strength of adhesively bonded composite joints decreased with the increasing of axial impact energy and vibration cycles. The experimental results showed that the strength was higher only at 10 J energy when compared to other impact energy values.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Structural Response to Dynamic Loads · Structural Analysis of Composite Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Doğuş University, İstanbul, Turkey
Department of Mechanical Engineering, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey
Funding
İzmir Katip Çelebi University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Office
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.10.01010.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.10.010 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.02.00810.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.02.008 ↗
3. Wahab MA. · Int Schol Res Network · 2012 · 2012 · 746308
4. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.09.03710.1016/j.compscitech.2008.09.037 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.07.13910.1016/j.matdes.2016.07.139 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.01.01010.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.01.010 ↗
7. 10.1177/002199831559553210.1177/0021998315595532 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.03.06910.1016/j.compstruct.2015.03.069 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.09710.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.097 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.03610.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.036 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.09.03810.1016/j.compositesb.2015.09.038 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2009.02.01210.1016/j.ijadhadh.2009.02.012 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.02.00810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.02.008 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.04110.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.041 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.01.01410.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.01.014 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.09.00510.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.09.005 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.09.04410.1016/j.ijadhadh.2013.09.044 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.01810.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.018 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.03510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.035 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.06710.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.067 ↗
21. Akpinar S. · Int J AdhesAdhes · 2017 · 51 · 501
22. 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.08.00110.1016/j.matdes.2012.08.001 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.05.00610.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.05.006 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2011.12.00410.1016/j.ijadhadh.2011.12.004 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.01810.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.018 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.04.03610.1016/j.compositesb.2019.04.036 ↗
27. Moreno MC · Appl Math Model · 2015 · 39 · 496
28. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.02.00210.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.02.002 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.07.00910.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.07.009 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.08.00110.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.08.001 ↗
31. 10.1080/00218464.2013.76482910.1080/00218464.2013.764829 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.01.00710.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.01.007 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.03.00310.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.03.003 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.measurement.2014.05.01110.1016/j.measurement.2014.05.011 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.09210.1016/j.engstruct.2018.04.092 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.10731710.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107317 ↗
37. Mechanical Behavior of DP 460 Adhesive; [cited 2020 Dec 08]. Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/66122O/3mtm-scotch-weld-tm-epoxy-adhesive-dp460-ns-and-off-white.pdf.
38. ASTM D5868: 2014. Standard Test Method for Lap Shear Adhesion for Fiber Reinforced Plastic (FRP) Bonding.